Sean Ryan Sheets v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1380
Filed February 19, 2025

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SEAN RYAN SHEETS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Stuart P. Werling,

Judge.

A defendant appeals from his convictions and sentences. CONVICTIONS

AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Bower, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2025).
2

BOWER, Senior Judge.

A jury found Sheets guilty of five counts of second-degree sexual abuse, six

counts of lascivious acts with a child–fondle or touch, and two counts of indecent

contact with a child following his sexual assaults of his stepchildren over several

years. He was sentenced to terms of incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years

on each of the sexual-abuse charges, ten years on each of the lascivious-acts

charges, and two years on each of the indecent-contact charges, to be served

consecutively. On appeal, Sheets challenges the district court’s admission of

evidence of prior instances of abuse committed against the same children in a

different county and the court’s failure to recognize it had discretion to consider

risk assessment information in his presentence investigation report (PSI). Upon

our review, we affirm Sheets’s convictions, vacate his sentences, and remand for

resentencing.

I. Evidence of Prior Abuse

In approximately 2012, Sheets began living with L.S. and her daughters in

Davenport in Scott County. In 2019, Sheets and L.S. got married, and the family

moved to Bennett in Cedar County. In 2022, the State filed a trial information

charging Sheets with various sexual crimes against his stepdaughters “between

August 15, 2019, and April 1, 2022, in the County of Cedar . . . .” Sheets pleaded

not guilty.

Prior to trial, Sheets filed a motion in limine objecting to the admission of

testimony of his abuse of the stepdaughters outside Cedar County during the time

period the family lived in Davenport. Specifically, Sheets moved to exclude
3

“evidence of similar offenses” under Iowa Code section 701.11 (2022). That rule

provides:

In a criminal prosecution in which a defendant has been
charged with sexual abuse, evidence of the defendant’s commission
of another sexual abuse is admissible and may be considered for its
bearing on any matter for which the evidence is relevant. This
evidence, though relevant, may be excluded if the probative value of
the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by
considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence. This evidence is not
admissible unless the state presents clear proof of the commission
of the prior act of sexual abuse.

Iowa Code § 701.11(1). Section 701.11(3) further states, “For purposes of this

section, ‘sexual abuse’ means any commission of or conviction for a crime defined

in chapter 709. ‘Sexual abuse’ also means any commission of or conviction for a

crime in another jurisdiction under a statute that is substantially similar to any crime

defined in chapter 709.”

Sheets claimed the “State cannot show that the allegations of sex abuse in

another jurisdiction that have yet to be litigated is admissible for its bearing on any

matter for which the evidence is relevant.” Sheets further argued even if “there is

a showing of relevance, then the evidence should still be excluded because the

probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice.” The district court held a hearing on the motion, during which the State

articulated

the testimony would be by H.G. and R.P., the child victims in this
case, talking about the Defendant sexually abusing them in the past,
and there would be no other witnesses testifying about third-party
victims who are not involved with the current charges.
It would be strictly the victims testifying about being victimized
by the Defendant historically.
4

The court reserved its ruling on Sheets’s motion. During trial, when R.P.

began testifying about the “first time” Sheets abused her, the motion came before

the court again with defense counsel objecting to the admission of evidence “for

allegations that occurred in a different county.” The State countered, arguing:

As a starting matter, what county it happened in is coming whole
cloth from Defense counsel. I’m not aware of any case law that
would support that distinction.
The standard that the [Iowa] Supreme Court has identified is
there has to be clear proof the individual against whom the evidence
is offered committed the bad act or crime. The case law is very clear
that testimony from the victim of his prior acts constitutes clear proof,
which is what we will have here.
In terms of what this testimony would be relevant for, one,
would be showing the nature of the relationship between the
Defendant and this witness, and the same issues—the same
relevance is going to apply with respect to [H.G.]’s testimony later
today.
. . . It’s necessary for showing the context of the crime
charged in this case and allowing a full presentation of the case.
. . . I think highly probative in this case as it shows
Defendant’s passion or propensity for illicit sexual relations with
these witnesses. . . .
And more particularly with this case, this evidence is relevant
to showing the Defendant’s specific intent for the specific intent
crimes he faces . . . .
....
I don’t think that this evidence will be unfairly prejudicial to the
Defendant. The jury’s already gonna be hearing about multiple acts
of sex abuse. I don’t think that they’re suddenly gonna be enraged
against him by hearing about the Davenport incidents on top of that.
If they were inclined to being enraged at him for sexual abuse, that’s
coming anyway.
In terms of confusion of the issues, my intention is to talk with
these witnesses about how it started, what kind of touching, and we’ll
say when she got to Bennett, did it continue, and then we’ll start
getting specific about how many times certain things happened. So
there will be a clear delineation with respect to the charges . . . .
I don’t believe it’s cumulative, and to the extent it’s cumulative,
any danger to that does not outweigh the probative value of this
evidence when it comes to the Defendant’s passion or propensity for
sexual relations with these victims. I don’t believe it’s a waste of time,
and simply the [Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.403] factors do not show
that this evidence should not come in.
5

Ultimately, the district court overruled Sheets’s motion, stating:

The admissibility of this evidence, as in most cases, sits in a
balance, and the Court must weigh the competing factors. The
relevance of the proposed testimony is based on—must be—it must
be a finding of clear proof, and as the State has indicated, clear proof
is established when the victim testifies that the events to which she
testifies occurred to her personally.
As to the remainder of the Defendant’s arguments, I believe
the State’s interpretation of the statute is correct. I believe that the
evidence is admissible, that it shows, amongst other things, and
perhaps most importantly for the understanding of the jury, the
passion of the Defendant for sexual contact with this particular
witness. It sets out the story.
The Court does not believe that a determination or a finding
by the jury that the acts of sexual abuse that the—uncharged acts of
sexual abuse that the witness may testify to in this case will
substantially prejudice the jury as they will hear—it appears that they
will hear that similar acts also occurred later and in Cedar County.
I don’t think the fact that there were three acts makes it more
horrible to the jury than that there were two acts or that there were
ten acts is more horrible than five acts. That prejudice I just don’t
think exists in that regard. For those reasons, for the reasons set
forth by the State, the motion is denied. The witness may testify.
....
The Court finds similarly that if the other proposed witness
[H.G.] is to—is expected to testify as to sexual contact between her
and the Defendant that occurred, A, that is uncharged and, B,
occurred outside of the county in which this case is being held, that
for the reasons set forth by the State, the motion to suppress that
testimony made by the Defense would also likewise be denied.

On appeal, Sheets challenges the court’s ruling.1 We review rulings

admitting evidence under Iowa Code section 701.11 for an abuse of discretion.

State v. Reyes, 744 N.W.2d 95, 99 (Iowa 2008). We only find an abuse of

1 To the extent Sheets challenges the court’s admission of “character evidence”

under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404(b), Sheets acknowledges “[d]ue to the overlap
of section 701.11 and rule 5.404(b), the analysis and result is the same because
section 701.11 is a more expansive version of 5.404(b).” See State v. Cox, 781
N.W.2d 757, 761 (Iowa 2010) (observing section 701.11 governs the admission
“of prior sexual abuse without limiting such evidence to the specific categories in
Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404(b) . . . .”).
6

discretion when the district court exercises its discretion on clearly untenable

grounds or to a clearly unreasonable extent. Id.

Section 701.11 “invites a two-step analysis.” State v. Eakin, No. 23-0163,

2024 WL 470184, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2024).

First, the State must offer clear proof that the defendant in a sexual-
abuse prosecution committed another act of sexual abuse against
the same victim. Direct testimony from the victim is sufficient clear
proof to meet that requirement. Once the State clears that hurdle,
the evidence may be considered for its bearing on any matter for
which it is relevant. Second, even relevant evidence may be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice.

Id. (cleaned up). The supreme court has observed:

The existence of prior sexual abuse involving the same alleged
perpetrator and victim . . . has relevance on the underlying criminal
charge because it shows the nature of the relationship between the
alleged perpetrator and the victim. Further, the potential of undue
prejudice where prior sexual abuse evidence is admitted in cases
involving the same alleged perpetrator and victim is far less than in
cases where the prior bad acts involve other alleged victims. We
hold that a defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial is not
jeopardized by the admission of such evidence.

Reyes, 744 N.W.2d at 102.

Relating to the first step, Sheets claims “[g]iven the factual allegations in

this case, Sheets’s passion for sexual relations with H.G. and R.P. was not relevant

to any legitimate issue—the details of the charged abuse resolve any concern

regarding a passion or propensity for sexual relations with H.G. and R.P.” Yet,

Sheets “was steadfast in his denial of ever touching H.G. or R.P. in any sexual

manner.” So there was a legitimate issue as to whether the sex acts alleged by

R.P. and H.G. actually took place. Accordingly, the children’s corroborative

testimony about prior sexual abuse by Sheets was relevant to whether the charged
7

conduct in fact occurred. See Eakin, 2024 WL 470184, at *3; State v. Wright,

No. 12-2138, 2014 WL 956064, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2014) (citing

cases).

Turning to the second step, Sheets claims “even if the evidence was

relevant to a legitimate issue, the evidence should have been excluded because

its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,

confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury.” Sheets maintains the evidence

of the Davenport allegations was similar in many ways to the allegations of the

other incidents, and relying on Cox, he claims the “similarity” of the evidence

makes it more prejudicial. 781 N.W.2d at 769 (“[T]hat which makes the evidence

more probative—the similarity of the prior act to the charged act—also makes it

more prejudicial.”). Further, he argues because the allegations “were all

substantially similar,” the jury was more likely to be confused and misled. Finally,

he claims the Davenport allegations were “particularly inflammatory” because the

children “were even younger” when the alleged abuse took place.

Aside from the similarity to the charged crimes, as the district court found,

the evidence of prior abuse “sets out the story” of these offenses. The children

alleged Sheets had been abusing them for years but they never told anyone, so

the State “had the task of explaining [their] delayed disclosure to the jury.” Eakin,

2024 WL 470184, at *4. And Sheets pointed to his work schedule and the lack of

privacy in the family’s household to support the notion that he had no access to

the children to allow him an opportunity to abuse them. He also pointed to the fact

that other people lived in the home who “never saw any issues with the family.”

However, the nature of the prior abuse was no more egregious or inflammatory
8

than the charged conduct, and the State did not spend significant time developing

testimony regarding the Davenport allegations. In short, we conclude the probative

value of the prior evidence was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.

Moreover, any risk of prejudice was diminished by the district court giving

the jury the following cautionary instruction:

Evidence has been received concerning other wrongful acts
alleged to have been committed by the defendant. The defendant is
not on trial for those acts.
This evidence must be shown by clear proof to show intent,
the nature of the defendant’s relationships with H.G. and R.P., and
the defendant’s passion or propensity for illicit sexual relations with
H.G. and/or R.P. and for no other purpose.
If you find other wrongful acts occurred then and only then
may such other wrongful acts by considered for the purpose of intent,
the nature of the defendant’s relationships with H.G. and R.P., and
the defendant’s passion or propensity for illicit sexual relations with
H.G. and/or R.P.
You may consider whether the acts were recent or remote and
whether the acts were similar or dissimilar to the crimes charged in
this case and all other relevant factors in deciding how much weight
and effect to give them.

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot say the district

court abused its discretion in allowing H.G. and R.P. to testify regarding Sheets’s

prior sexual abuse.

II. Sentencing Discretion

Sheets claims the district court abused its discretion “when it erroneously

believed it could not consider Sheets’s score of being low risk for future violence

and low category for future victimization in the PSI.” Specifically, at sentencing,

the court stated in part:

The Court has reviewed the PSI in this matter. The PSI makes use
of the [Iowa Risk Revised] to determine the Defendant’s likelihood of
re-offending. The Supreme Court has instructed us not to take into
9

consideration that portion of the PSI, and the Court does not take
that portion of the PSI into consideration.

The State concedes the district court was unaware it could consider the risk

assessment contained in Sheets’s PSI. See State v. Martin, 2 N.W.3d 271, 275

(Iowa 2024) (“The district court does not abuse its discretion by considering risk

assessment information in a presentence investigation report where a defendant

has notice of the risk assessment and fails to present evidence exposing some

actual unsoundness in it.”).2 The State concedes this entitles Sheets to

resentencing, and we agree. See State v. Hess, 983 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Iowa 2022)

(“[W]hen the sentencing court fails to exercise discretion because it was unaware

that it had discretion, we typically vacate and remand for resentencing.” (cleaned

up)). “As part of resentencing, the district court shall exercise its discretion in all

respects, including [considering the risk assessment contained in the PSI].” See

Davis, 4 N.W.3d at 466.

CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED

FOR RESENTENCING.

2 “We note the district court did not have the benefit of [Martin] at the time of
sentencing.” See State v. Davis, 4 N.W.3d 466, 466 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024)
(vacating sentence and remanding for resentencing where the district court was
unaware of its discretion to suspend a special sentence for the minor defendant).